Partly allowed

Jinnareddy Kantha Reddy v. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and Another

Telangana HC2 Sept 2022MACMA/2255/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decree involving permanent disability due to leg amputation, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,27,000 to Rs.4,34,500 by modifying medical bills, loss of income calculations, disability percentage, and adding head claims for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.4,34,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum to be deposited by respondents within one month.

Jinnareddy Kantha Reddy Vs M/S Indian Oil… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

|³²¹⁷ |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No.2255 of 201 1

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.1'164 of 2005 dated 11.01 .2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge (lll FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalguda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jinnareddy Kantha Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ: Quary business, Fl/o Damaracherla Village, Waddapally Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. lndian Oil Corporation Ltd., Aviation Fuel Station, RJo Dabolim AFS, lnside INS Hansa, Dabolim, Goa-403801

¶13

(Owner of the Vehicle Temporary Registration No.T.No.20 A.A. (T) 426)

¶14

The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Sangamithra Bank Complex, Prakasahm Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District-

¶15

(Policy Cove Note No.21457, Valid from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2006)

¶16

Policy issued by Divisional Officer: 710500, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. ANNAPURNA SREERAM

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI^THOoM SRINIVAS

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No. 2255 of 2O11

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

In this appeal, the claim petitioner secks enhancement of compensation granted in the decree and^judgment dated 11.0i.2010 in O.P.No.1164 of 2005 passed bl the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-V Additional District Judge (lII FTC), Nalgonda at Mir,valaguda

¶25

Heard Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsei for the appellant and Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel lor the l"t respondent.

¶26

The case of the petitioner in brief is that on O8.07.2005 at OB:30 AM while he was proceeding on loot from Mzrruthi Stone Polishing Mill of Damaracherla^Village to a l{irana shop, a lorry bearing registration number T.N.2O.AA.(TI 426 (for short the lorry') came from Wadapally side in a rasl'r and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner and^caused lracture inj uries ar-rd in the medical treatment his right^leg had been amputated below knee. Thus the petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

I I

NTR,J rracora 2255^201I

¶31

The Tribunal on considering the evidence held that the accident happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and ar,r,arded Rs.60,000/- for medical expenditure, Rs.6O,00O/- towards loss of income duc to disability, Rs.i,5OO/for transportation, Rs.5,000/- lowards pain and sufferings and Rs.500/- towards damages to the clothing. In all Rs. 1,27,000/with 7.5o/o p.a. has been awarded against the owner and insurer of the lorry/ 1"t and 2"d respondent.

¶32

In appeal the petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in discrediting the material pror,ing his income at Rs.7,OOO/and notionally fixing monthlv incomc :rt Rs.3,000/-. Further, the Tribunal had gone \vrong in cor-rsidcring his age at 60 years. In addition, no amount is all,ardccl for loss ol income during the period of treatment and for loss of amcnities. That apart, the amounts awarded tou,ards pain and suffering, transportation, damage to the clothing are minimal. Tl-rus, prayed for grant of just compensation.

¶33

Learned counsel for tl-rc l.'^respondent/ insured pleaded that the Tribunal had properl-r' considered the claim and

¶34

NTR..I ., macma 2255 20l l

¶35

¶36

reasonably awarded the compensation and no tenable ground is pointed out in appeal, thus prayed for confirming the arvard.

¶37

Inspite of due notice, the 2"d respondent/insurer choose to remain silent.

¶38

B. In this context, the points that arise for determination are:

¶39

a) Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner by the Tribunal is just and proper?

¶40

b) Whether the petitioner could make out any case for enhancement as prayed for?

¶41

The treating Doctor/ PW2 deposed that the petitioner had sustained the lollos'ing injuries:

¶42

a) Belou, Knee amputation of Right Lower leg.

¶43

b) Communited Fracture Shaft Femer of Right thigh

¶44

c) Dislocation of Acromiao Clavicluar Joint left Shoulder.

¶45

And that, the petitioner had undergone surgery on 10.07.20O5 for interlocking nail Right Femur. The petitioner below knee amputation stump sutured and left shoulder strapping was done by him. He confirmed that medico-legal certificate/ Ex.A3, discharge summan:/ trx.A15 and bunch of medical bills/Ex.A16 were issued on his advice to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner u,as referred to Sri Sai Krishna Multi Specialty

\ N]tt..t rnacnra 2255 20ll

¶50

Hospital for treatment. This oral evidence and the entries in medico-legal certificate / Ex.A3 and discharge summary/trx.A15 are establishing the injuries and the treatment undergone by the petitioner.

¶51

The petitioner placed Exs.A16 and A17 medical bills to prove the claim of medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- The doctor/ PW2 ir-r his cvidcnce accepted that the medical bills trx.A16 and prcscription u,ere on his advice. The Ex.A17 is the bill issued b.y Sri Sai Krishna Multi Specialty Hospital, Miryalguda for Rs. 17 ,707 .551 To note the cross-examination of PW1, cxcept negating suggestions, the genunity of the bills u/erc not dispute d. [n this position, basing on the asservation of the PWl, the statement of doctor/PW2, and the bills, granting Rs.64,355.30/- b-v rounding off to Rs.64,5OO/- is found proper. To that effect, the amount granted for the medical expenditure, is modified.

¶52

1 1. As per the doctor's evidence, the petitioner was admitted into hospital on 09.07.2005 and discharged on 22.O7.2OO5 il Furthcr, l-ravir-rg regard to the nature of injuries suffered,

¶53

N1'R:J nracnra 2f55 f0ll

¶54

¶55

minim um of three months of bed rest for recoverv can be presumed.

¶56

With regard to occupation, the petitioner claimed that he \'a s aged 50 years and through business used to earn Rs.7,00O/ per month. No documentaqr evidence is brought on record to prove the age and the income.

¶57

1 3. l-he Tribunal by considering the entries ll1 medico legal certilicate / Ex.A3 and permanent disability certificater / Ex. A.+ took the age of the petitioner as 60 years. In abscncc of an-r' doclrment deducing the age basing on available record is lound rational.

¶58

To validate the occupation and income of the petitioner submittecl registration certificates issued bv Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO)/Exs.A5 and A6, provisional registr:rtion certificate issued by Industrial promotion officer/ trx.A7, Form-L certilicate issued by Assistant Director of Mines ancl Geologr, Nalgonda/Ex.A8, Photo copv of lease deed certificate issued by Assistant Director of Mines and Geolog,, Nalgor-rcla/ Ex.A9, approved plan of Vishnu Priva Stone

¶59

N1-ti,J rracora 22-55 2l)ll

¶60

¶61

¶62

Industry/Ex.A10, Original permission certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Damaracherla/Ex.A I 1, No ob.iection certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, DamaracherlalBx.Al2, copy of Pahani issued by Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Damaracherla/Ex.A 13 and copies of pattedar pass books bearir-rg Nos. 138344 and 138493/Ex.A14.

¶63

A perusal of the documents are indicating the certifications and permissions from the concerned authority, hort ever, the existence of the industry and the monthly income claimed by the petitioner remained unanswered. However, these documents are making out the capabilities as such, rating the petitioner ir-r equal footing with the manual wage earners found not be appropriate. In this position, as there is no specific matcrial and as the petitioner claimed monthly income appears to be overplaying, notionally fixing the monthly income at Rs.S,OOO/is found reasonable. In effect, Rs.15,000/- is granted tou,ards loss of income during the period of treatment.

¶64

[t is not in dispute that in the course ol treatment the right 1cg of the petitioner below the knee^was amputated. Thc doctor

¶65

Nt R.l n)ircolr l25i l0l I

¶66

¶67

¶68

of the Medical Board/PW3 and the disabilit], certificate/trx.A4 had reasoned the disabiity at 6O'k. It is common knolr,ledge that the disability rated by the doctors r'r,ould be u.ith reference to particular limb and while considering the compen sation for the disability effecting the income earning capacity has to be taken into account. Considering this aspect, the doctor's evidence in proving the disability and the occtrpational activity, the disability in income earning capacit_r, has been taken by the Tribunal at 5Oo/o. This conclusion is found ratior-ral, hence accepted.

¶69

i6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and otherst held that tl-re fr-rtur-e prosl)ects as endorsed in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, IS applicable in assessing the compensation for the cases of disability. Thuslr', considering the age and occupation of the petitioner, 107o of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Resultanth', annr-ral loss of income at 5Oo/o would be of Rs.33,00O/-. This sun.r if multiplied

¶70

'^{ntR 2o2osc 4424}

¶71

'l^{1zotz1 to scc 680}

¶72

N1'I{,J ,nacrna 2255^201I

¶73

¶74

with the relevant multiplier to the age of petitioner i.e., 9, it would come to Rs.2,97,000/-. The petitioner is entitled for this amount towards loss of future earnings due to the permanent disability.

¶75

In addition, having regard to the injuries, treatment and the resulted amputation of the loq,er limb and disability, the amount awarded for the pain and sulferir1gs is enhanced to Rs.3O,00O/-. Further, tl-re anount anvarded towards transportation, damages to clothing arc bcttercd to Rs.5,0OO/and Rs.3,OOO/- respectively, as claimed in the pctition. The amputation and permanent disabilit.v u'ould certainly effect the enjoyment of life of the petitioncr. Consider-ing this aspect, Rs.20,OOO/- is granted for loss of amcnities.

¶76

Therefore, the petitioner is eligiblc for the compensation, as under:

¶77

Loss offuturea]low,auce	Rs.2,97,000
Medical CNSCS	Rq.6J,s!0
Painand suffcrincq	Rs.30,000
Loss ofincomedurir-t gtreatment	Rs.15,000
Lossof amenities	Rs.20,000
Trans ortation	Rs.5,000
cloLhing Damagesand	Rs.3,000
TOTAL	Rs.4,34,5OO

¶78

NTR,J macnra 2255 201I

The Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act endorsed a statutory duty on the Court to award just and reasonable compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors held that the compensation amount can be awarded be1,e.6 the claimecl amount if the claimants are entitled to and the compensation IS just and proper. Correspondingll., the petitioner is awarded the above arrived compensation.

¶83

Consequentll,, the appeal is allowed in part in the following terms:

¶84

a. The Appellan t / petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.4,34,5OO/- (I?upees lour lakhs thirty four thousand five hundred onll') [,ith interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization;

¶85

b. The 1"r and 2"a respondents are liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded amourlt s'it l-r intcrest rvithin one month from the date of receipt of copl' ol the order;

¶86

NTR.J nlacnla 2255^201I

¶87

¶88

c. On deposit of enhanced amount with interest^the appellant/petitioner is^permitted to withdraw^{the entire} amount.

¶89

As a seqttel, thc pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if any,}

¶90

shall star-rd closcd.

¶91

¶92

Sd/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// qD SECTION OFFICER

¶93

To,

¶94

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge (lll FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalguda. (with records)

¶95

One CC to M/s. Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate TOPUC]

¶96

One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate IOPUC]

4- Two CD Copies

gbr

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2255 of 2011

¶105

1 $E ST4 r€:
(
oo) 2 5 [An 2[8
,!^
*
t)
=di.=-,

¶106

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @*'E br2-;--{tV'

¶107

13217 |

¶108

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶109

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶110

PRESENT

¶111

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶112

M.A.C.M.A.No.2255 of 2011

¶113

Between:

¶114

Jinnareddy Kantha Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ: Quary business, Rl/o Damaracherla Village, Waddapally Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶115

...PETITIONER

¶116

AND

¶117

M/s. lndian Oil Corporation Ltd., Aviation Fuel Station, Ri./o Dabolim AFS, Inside INS Hansa, Dabolim, Goa-403801

¶118

(Owner of the Vehicle Temporary Registration No.T.No.20 A.A. (T) 426)

¶119

The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Sangamithra Bank Complex, Prakasahm Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶120

(Policy Cove Note No.21457, Valid from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2006)

¶121

Policy issued by Divisional Officer: 710500, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai.

¶122

...RESPONDENTS

¶123

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.1164 of 2005 dated 11.01 .2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge (lll FTC), Nalgonda at Miryalguda.

¶124

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶125

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶126

1- That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part in the following terms.

¶127

That the AppellanVpetitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.4,34,500/(Rupees four lakhs thirty four thousand five hundred only) (Rs.4,34,500/(Lower Court awarded 1,27,0001- = 3,07,5001 (Three lakhs seven thousand five hundred only) with interest at 7.5o/o per annum form the date of petition till realization.

¶128

That the 1"t and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶129